Q and A
Answers to selected questions sent to the Education Chair
Q: Hi, I writing in regards to, what I feel was, a misinterpretation of the charging rule that was enforced during a CSMBA game at Talisman Centre on Oct -- First allow me to clarify that this is not a direct complaint towards the level of officiating in that game, rather it is an attempt to clarify a ruling that was made on the court, as the explanation given to me by the referees led me to believe there was a misinterpretation of the rule. Second, I am writing this with the authorization of my team captain, whom I have cc'd on this email just so he is aware of our correspondence.
Here is the situation in question:
An offensive player drove into the key and a defensive player was able to establish position in front of the basket. The offensive player takes 2 steps before launching himself in the air and takes the shot. The offensive player then collides with the defensive player while in the air, and the ball enters the basket. The initial call made by the referee on the baseline was a charge. However, the second referee intervenes, says the ball was in the air, therefore the basket is good AND charges an offensive foul to the offending player.
The explanation given to me by the referees was that the offensive player did not have control of the ball as it was in the air, therefore the collision occurred after the shot. However, FIBA defines that the act of a shot does not end until both feet belonging to the shooter return to the ground, which in this case did not happen. The collission occurred during the act of shooting, therefore the basket should not count.
Again, I want to reiterate that I'm not disputing the call itself, rather I am disputing the application of a rule that I felt was misinterpretted and I'm hoping you would be able to clarify the rule either to myself or to the referees to ensure that it doesn't happen again during the regular season.
Thank you for your time.
Here is the situation in question:
An offensive player drove into the key and a defensive player was able to establish position in front of the basket. The offensive player takes 2 steps before launching himself in the air and takes the shot. The offensive player then collides with the defensive player while in the air, and the ball enters the basket. The initial call made by the referee on the baseline was a charge. However, the second referee intervenes, says the ball was in the air, therefore the basket is good AND charges an offensive foul to the offending player.
The explanation given to me by the referees was that the offensive player did not have control of the ball as it was in the air, therefore the collision occurred after the shot. However, FIBA defines that the act of a shot does not end until both feet belonging to the shooter return to the ground, which in this case did not happen. The collission occurred during the act of shooting, therefore the basket should not count.
Again, I want to reiterate that I'm not disputing the call itself, rather I am disputing the application of a rule that I felt was misinterpretted and I'm hoping you would be able to clarify the rule either to myself or to the referees to ensure that it doesn't happen again during the regular season.
Thank you for your time.
A: Thank you for the email. I appreciate that you want to get it right and you want us to get it right too. Let me go through the sequence you describe....
Yes the foul should be charged to the shooter and the officials administred the play correctly but their explanation was poor and it could have had implications....let me explain....
Since the shot was released before the foul, it is correct that the goal should count. That FIBA rule you speak to is used to determine if someone who is fouled should shoot freethrows. That means if this was a foul was committed by the defender, then the shooter would continue to have the opportunity to shoot freethows until both feet return to the floor.
Since the ball was released that means the shooter's team is no longer in team control so it can't be an team control foul. A team control foul means the team committing the foul cannot score. In this case it is just a foul, kind of like a rebounding foul. Here is a possible scenario...if this foul by the shooter is the 5th foul in the quarter then the defensive player on the receiving end of the foul would shoot free throws as well as counting the original basket. When this explanation is used, the foul should be called a "push" not a "charge" to make the call and the ramifications clearer. We try to save "charge" for team control fouls.
I will contact the officials at that game and remind them that in this situation it is not an offensive foul if they are going to count the basket because that has implications.
Thank you again for your question. If you want further clarification please don't hesitate to email me.
Mike Bittante
Yes the foul should be charged to the shooter and the officials administred the play correctly but their explanation was poor and it could have had implications....let me explain....
Since the ball was released that means the shooter's team is no longer in team control so it can't be an team control foul. A team control foul means the team committing the foul cannot score. In this case it is just a foul, kind of like a rebounding foul. Here is a possible scenario...if this foul by the shooter is the 5th foul in the quarter then the defensive player on the receiving end of the foul would shoot free throws as well as counting the original basket. When this explanation is used, the foul should be called a "push" not a "charge" to make the call and the ramifications clearer. We try to save "charge" for team control fouls.
I will contact the officials at that game and remind them that in this situation it is not an offensive foul if they are going to count the basket because that has implications.
Thank you again for your question. If you want further clarification please don't hesitate to email me.
Mike Bittante
Case: Player A1 is fouled and is to shoot 2 free throws. A timeout hapens and when play resumes, A3 shoots the first free throw. At this time the officials notice the error. A) The officials rule it is a simple mistake or B) the officials rule that it was a deliberate action for A3 to take the free throws instead of A1
Ruling: Art. 44 – Correctable Errors
This is a situation where the wrong player attempted the free throws - Art. 44.3.3
In situation A) application of 44.3.3 is appropriate – cancel all of the free throws (even the made ones) and give the ball to team B at the free throw line extended. In situation B) (this actually happened in a game over this past weekend in town) the officials ruled that A3 deliberately attempted to deceive by taking the free throws as he was a better shooter. The officials erased the free throws and charged A3 with a technical foul for his deliberate attempt to deceive.
In B) the officials stated they had positive knowledge that the players knew that it should be A1 who should be shooting the free throws therefore their choice to charge a technical foul as well as eliminate the free throws.
This error could have been avoided with a little more focus from the officials. The calling official did state who the shooter was to be at the time of the foul. The timeout added a wrinkle. At the beginning of the timeout the officials should have stated and agreed how the game was to restart and this same info is reiterated at the end of the timeout as well…”we are coming back with A1 shooting 2”. Next there needs to be focus at the time of the free throws from the officials to ensure the correct person is shooting, the number of free throws is correct and that everyone else on the floor is in a legal position. We should not put a ball into play without ensuring all things under our control are legal. We as officials must take the time to ensure all of these situations are correct. Another example is when we have subs…we have a responsibility to resume the game with 5 players per side. When we put the ball into play with one team with 6 players on the floor, more often than not, some player didn’t get the message that they were supposed to come off the floor and it is an honest mistake and our error. If we take the time to “sweep” the floor before we start, we can fix things and do so without penalty. Charging technical fouls in these cases are saved for times when we have positive knowledge that players or coaches deliberately contravened the rule. Technicals in these cases should be the rarity, not the norm.
The other issue is when we determine the wrong player has attempted the free throw…when he steps to the line, when he gets the ball, or after the shot has been released. The answer here is in the interpretation of “live ball/ dead ball” and a ball is alive when the ball is at the disposal of the free throw shooter (Art 10.2). Disposal of the shooter is when the ball is passed to the shooter by the official. Violations on free throws can only happen when the ball is alive; we need to have a live ball to have a wrong shooter.
This is a situation where the wrong player attempted the free throws - Art. 44.3.3
In situation A) application of 44.3.3 is appropriate – cancel all of the free throws (even the made ones) and give the ball to team B at the free throw line extended. In situation B) (this actually happened in a game over this past weekend in town) the officials ruled that A3 deliberately attempted to deceive by taking the free throws as he was a better shooter. The officials erased the free throws and charged A3 with a technical foul for his deliberate attempt to deceive.
In B) the officials stated they had positive knowledge that the players knew that it should be A1 who should be shooting the free throws therefore their choice to charge a technical foul as well as eliminate the free throws.
This error could have been avoided with a little more focus from the officials. The calling official did state who the shooter was to be at the time of the foul. The timeout added a wrinkle. At the beginning of the timeout the officials should have stated and agreed how the game was to restart and this same info is reiterated at the end of the timeout as well…”we are coming back with A1 shooting 2”. Next there needs to be focus at the time of the free throws from the officials to ensure the correct person is shooting, the number of free throws is correct and that everyone else on the floor is in a legal position. We should not put a ball into play without ensuring all things under our control are legal. We as officials must take the time to ensure all of these situations are correct. Another example is when we have subs…we have a responsibility to resume the game with 5 players per side. When we put the ball into play with one team with 6 players on the floor, more often than not, some player didn’t get the message that they were supposed to come off the floor and it is an honest mistake and our error. If we take the time to “sweep” the floor before we start, we can fix things and do so without penalty. Charging technical fouls in these cases are saved for times when we have positive knowledge that players or coaches deliberately contravened the rule. Technicals in these cases should be the rarity, not the norm.
The other issue is when we determine the wrong player has attempted the free throw…when he steps to the line, when he gets the ball, or after the shot has been released. The answer here is in the interpretation of “live ball/ dead ball” and a ball is alive when the ball is at the disposal of the free throw shooter (Art 10.2). Disposal of the shooter is when the ball is passed to the shooter by the official. Violations on free throws can only happen when the ball is alive; we need to have a live ball to have a wrong shooter.
Q: At my game today I had a girl with an earing that she said that she could not take out. The protocol that I was trained on with Jewelry was always to enforce the rule and there was big emphasis on my previous board for everyone to enforce the jewelry rule. As I understood it this was always for the safety of the players and the officials. So the issue was that she could not take her earing out so I said that she could not play with her earing in. She then proceeded to tell me that she had the earing for quite a while and it had never been enforced. Can you please issue me directives. Are we enforcing the rule on Jewelry or are we not?
A:It must be basketball season...believe it or not, this is almost always the first question of the year....So....
Have a look at Rule 4.4.2 Bullet 2 Point 3 Pg.13...specifically mentions no headgear, hair accessories and jewellery. Quickly, headgear has nothing to do with religious headgear like a turban...common sense here. Hair accessories are bobbie pins or berets in hair.Now jewellery....like earrings....preventative officiating is always best which means see it and ensure it is dealt with in the warm up. If that is not possible then when you see the earring deny entry into the game or ask the player to leave until the jewellery is removed. Other officials may say it is an instant Tech which technically correct, playing with jewellery is a technical foul but we want to reserve techs for when we really need them....have a look at Rule 38.1.4 Pg.41..this deals with overlooking minor infractions when they are accidental and penalizing them with a Tech when they are repeated.
So for your girl...ask her to leave the game until the jewellery is removed. She said she cannot remove it...she does not play. She is not permitted to tape it either. She says she has played with it before...that is too bad because you are enforcing the rule correctly. If anyone has an issue with this interpretation, let them know it is a rule for the safety of the the person with the earring and the other players. If they still aren't accepting, give them my email address and I will clarify the rule for them.....she still does not play.
How many times have I seen Tech's given for this kind of stuff....once in over 2000 games...girl comes back from winter holidays in the Caribbean with beads in her hair and her hair is rather long (past her shoulders). We didn't think much of because they are just round beads...it until she went into the post and got into scrums and she whipped her head quickly around and hit a girl in the eye. We said this is a hazard and she cannot play with them in. The coach and the player were upset...she returned with the beads and her hair tucked into her jersey...the minute the beads were visible again, she was penalized for not adhering to the jewellery rule. As Rule 38.1.4 states, we overlooked the accidental infraction of the rule but her coming back in the game with the offending item hidden a repeated infraction of the rule and needed a penalty.
I know this is a long response but this will come up at every 3rd or 4th game this year especially with girls and with the advent of multiple piercings.So to sum this up, if you see it, they have to leave the game until it is removed. This includes....necklaces, bracelets and any piercings you can see. If you cannot see the belly button ring don't go looking for it.
The other issue is when someone shows up with something taped. If it is something that you can reasonable call a legitimate basketball place to put tape...IE on a wrist then don't worry about it unless you can see the bracelet bulging below the tape. The girl that shows up with a smaller than a postage stamp piece of tape on her nose or a piece of tape wrapped round her earlobe or eyelid...not a reasonable place to put tape for this game. Ask the player what is under the tape...if they say it is a piece of jewellery, ask to see it and have it removed. If they say it is to protect the hole of a piercing, still ask to see it to verify there is nothing there...all preventative officiating. This is also something you do if you see a player with tape all the way up one finger or up one forearm...you have a responsibility to ensure there is no splint (metal, plastic or whatever) under the tape.....this comes under rule 4.4.2 just like jewellery.
A very long-winded but vital answer to a constantly nagging question.
Have a look at Rule 4.4.2 Bullet 2 Point 3 Pg.13...specifically mentions no headgear, hair accessories and jewellery. Quickly, headgear has nothing to do with religious headgear like a turban...common sense here. Hair accessories are bobbie pins or berets in hair.Now jewellery....like earrings....preventative officiating is always best which means see it and ensure it is dealt with in the warm up. If that is not possible then when you see the earring deny entry into the game or ask the player to leave until the jewellery is removed. Other officials may say it is an instant Tech which technically correct, playing with jewellery is a technical foul but we want to reserve techs for when we really need them....have a look at Rule 38.1.4 Pg.41..this deals with overlooking minor infractions when they are accidental and penalizing them with a Tech when they are repeated.
So for your girl...ask her to leave the game until the jewellery is removed. She said she cannot remove it...she does not play. She is not permitted to tape it either. She says she has played with it before...that is too bad because you are enforcing the rule correctly. If anyone has an issue with this interpretation, let them know it is a rule for the safety of the the person with the earring and the other players. If they still aren't accepting, give them my email address and I will clarify the rule for them.....she still does not play.
How many times have I seen Tech's given for this kind of stuff....once in over 2000 games...girl comes back from winter holidays in the Caribbean with beads in her hair and her hair is rather long (past her shoulders). We didn't think much of because they are just round beads...it until she went into the post and got into scrums and she whipped her head quickly around and hit a girl in the eye. We said this is a hazard and she cannot play with them in. The coach and the player were upset...she returned with the beads and her hair tucked into her jersey...the minute the beads were visible again, she was penalized for not adhering to the jewellery rule. As Rule 38.1.4 states, we overlooked the accidental infraction of the rule but her coming back in the game with the offending item hidden a repeated infraction of the rule and needed a penalty.
I know this is a long response but this will come up at every 3rd or 4th game this year especially with girls and with the advent of multiple piercings.So to sum this up, if you see it, they have to leave the game until it is removed. This includes....necklaces, bracelets and any piercings you can see. If you cannot see the belly button ring don't go looking for it.
The other issue is when someone shows up with something taped. If it is something that you can reasonable call a legitimate basketball place to put tape...IE on a wrist then don't worry about it unless you can see the bracelet bulging below the tape. The girl that shows up with a smaller than a postage stamp piece of tape on her nose or a piece of tape wrapped round her earlobe or eyelid...not a reasonable place to put tape for this game. Ask the player what is under the tape...if they say it is a piece of jewellery, ask to see it and have it removed. If they say it is to protect the hole of a piercing, still ask to see it to verify there is nothing there...all preventative officiating. This is also something you do if you see a player with tape all the way up one finger or up one forearm...you have a responsibility to ensure there is no splint (metal, plastic or whatever) under the tape.....this comes under rule 4.4.2 just like jewellery.
A very long-winded but vital answer to a constantly nagging question.
Q: How do I send in a question?
Click here to send the Education Chair a Question. Your question and the answer may be posted on this page.